Conservapedia is a glorified blog by Andrew Schlafly that masquerades as a Trusworthy "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". Being created as a response to Wikipedia's claimed "liberal bias" (also known as "Reality"), the Website tries to tell the World the Conservative (American) version of our reality. Currently it serves as both a blog from which Andy Schlafly and the other Sysops broadcast their beliefs, and a service on which Andy's homeschool course homeworks and tests are given -- thus embarrassing not only the editors of their Wiki, but also the students that Andy homeschools. They are so misinformed, that their article on us is misspelled as Liberalpedia.

According to an LA Times interview with Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia was created after one of his homeschool students used BCE instead of BC in an assignment[1] -- which already tells us a lot about what Conservapedia is supposed to be.

Sometimes the Conservapedian view of reality makes even less sense, as may be seen, for example, in the articles on the Theory of relativity[2] and the E=mc²[3] formula, the former inexplicably related to moral relativism.

The things become even weirder when The Bible is mentioned. For example, their article on action at a distance[4] mentions two of Jesus's miracles as "instant," claiming this runs contrary to the theory of relativity.

This has led to many believing that Conservapedia is only a parody; however, given its history and owner, this theory is problematic. Very many parodists edit at Conservapedia, and parody creeps in despite h the owner's and sysops' attempts to prevent it.

Conservapedia has also made a list of the "worst college majors" -- a list that includes psychology, environmental science, English literature, wildlife management, creative writing, film, philosophy, journalism and architecture, and is topped by women's studies (which, for some reason, is number one while puppetry is at number six).

Conservapedia was started in early 2006. At first it was mainly written by home-schooledcreationist children, making it little better than ... well. (Those sad little home-schooled children will most likely suffer all their lives because of their poor education.)

The site became more famous than it ever deserved to be when progressives discovered it and trolled it.
Progressives began vandalizing it and linking to it from blogs urging people to vandalize or debate with them. This almost certainly accounted for better than two thirds of the hits Conservapedia got at that point.

Later, some scientifically-minded people began trying to inject scientifictruth into the site, but it soon ran afoul from Conservapedia's blocking policy (IF <username> INSERT <leftist bull> OR INSERT <centrist bull>, BLOCK <username>) (that was pseudocode, but less pseudo than some of the info on that site). Evolution became a battle-ground topic, followed by doughnuts. But the scientists could not hold the line, because, although they had the rational arguments, Andrew Schlafly had the all-powerful blocking shovel. Schlafly, aided by the late TK exiled them in what became known as the "Night of the Blunt Knives".

Some of those editors involved have started their own wikis, such as RationalWiki and the original Liberapedia, both of which strive to restore the balance of information and fight for protecting truth on the Internet.

"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure"- Mark Twain

Conservapedia is where facts go to die. Conservapedia, like any Encyclopedia (especially those using the open-editing wiki format), is prone to errors. And, when an encyclopedia actually tries to reject professional expertise, the errors become inevitable. There are plenty of reasons to argue that Conservapedia is actually far inferior to Wikipedia and that its articles are not to be trusted. Conservapedia's math and history articles have been criticized for a plethora of errors,[6] while a numerical comparison of Conservapedia articles with articles in Wikipedia have shown Conservapedia's articles to be lagging in both quantity and quality.[7]

Conservapedia folks imagine they could actually surpass the folks at Wikipedia in terms of accuracy, coverage and comprehensiveness. After all, founder Andrew Schlaflydid intend it to be a home schooling tool -- something that universities and schoolsdo not believe Wikipedia is worthy of. However, it appears that (from the wonderfully compact size of blurbs they steal from Conservapedia only to be extended and refuted on RationalWiki) Conservapedia is too retarded to work for education. They frequently censor users who present evidence that is against their views, and Schlafly fails utterly at spelling.

...using the wrong sort of English (i.e. using words that you learned after preschool or using anything other than American English)

...questioning the opinions of the admins. (Don't expect to receive answers to these questions, anyway.)

...registering under a username that an admin disagrees with. That used to mean anything that doesn't praise Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, God or Jesus. Now that means anything except a Christian name and the first letter of a second name -- even though a lot of active users have names that don't fit this rule, such as "ASchlafly", "Conservative" or "TK". (What to do when a user with the same first name and last initial has already registered isn't mentioned.)

Note: If you question Andy, he will brand you as a Liberal. Perfectly sane people understand that questioning is at the heart of Democracy, but Andy prefers obedience from all.

Note: On Conservapedia it is even possible to reach a state of limbo, in which you are not blocked but are not allowed to edit any pages. This will occur if you have a Conservapedia account from which you don't speak your mind (which would lead to the usual block) and which you use to correct the frequent grammar/spelling errors that tend to crop up when Conservapedians edit their beloved site and call it "trustworthy." It is possible that this will only occur if you are logged in from said valid account from an IP that has previously been banned and many important Internet Service Providers are range blocked.

Write about what's wrong with Conservapedia at the three above Wikis. (For Wikipedia, it would be a better option to express yourself on the userpage.) They can't block you for what you write out of the Conservapedia blocking shovel's reach. They can't revert it either, that's cool.

After you have joined the three aforementioned wikis, take the following steps, which will work provided your Internet Service Provider gives you a dynamic IP Adress:

Log out of Conservapedia.

Unplug router from the wall and go to sleep. Alternatively, switch off the router. Wait a minute or so. Switch it back on. That changes a dynamic IP Address. Some Internet Service Providers change your IP every few hours. Others change the IP every time you switch off.

Wake up in morning, walk downstairs in your jammies, and drink a steamy cup of hot cocoa. Be sure to include marshmallows.

Replug router to the wall and look at your new IP address. Alternatively, look at your new IP Adress a minute after you switched the router back on.

Go back to Confarceapedia Conservapedia with a sockpuppet and let MAndy, Ed Poop, Bungler, and JPratt know what you think of them.

Wait for blocking.

Repeat as needed.

????

PROFIT!!!!

Note that Conservapedia has restarted using range blocks. The above may not work as well as it used to.
If you have a static IP Adress or if you are range blocked, or if you don't want to be range blocked, look for proxies.
However, most proxies have been blocked, so the absolute best tool is Tor. Tor is a dynamic IP that no block, range, IP, or username can stop.

Inserting irrefutable facts as facts is considered vandalism at Conservapedia. In fact, most of Conservapedia's vandalism is actually people removing blatant falsehoods and misrepresented facts who is complete utter Bull$#!+.

Mention of RationalWiki is strictly forbidden. On this link you can see JPatt (Conservapedia's security guard) deleting JewishConservative's (Conservapedia user) user page content which mentions RW.

After that, JewishConservative asks JPatt why he deleted the mention of RW on his page and whether sysops are allowed to do that. JPatt answers him by saying that is a rule (...Mentioning those rats is forbidden here... it is a rule.). JewishConservative asks him to post a link to the rule that forbidds the mention of RW. JPatt replies that is an unwritten rule.

If you don't believe this occured, well... I'm going to supply you with a link.

Then, in order to help, TK tells JC to check out Conservapedia:Administrators Administrators and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. However, there is still nothing there that mentions anything about the sysops' right to remove the mentions of RW.

Note: When it's bed time in America, Conservapedia disallows edits, claiming that "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, edit". If you're outside the United States, you don't count as far as Andrew Schlafly is concerned, and you must wait until someone has woken up over there and allowed edits again.

Don't Go To Conservapedia Any More.

Except for five things:

Comedic relief. But even then, on any given page there is a 30% chance of headdesk from loss of faith in humanity.

To support the Liberal Revolution against Conservapedia! If you want to join in, simply create an account. It should NOT contain the word Liberal or anything that is liberal-y. Instead, place words that inspire "warm fuzzies" in Conservatives, such as JesusLover4evr or ReaganResurrected. Or choose something simple that won’t attract attention. At the moment Conservapedia insists on a first name with the first letter of a second name in capitals. So just choose a nice sounding Christian first name. It can be your real sex or the other sex. That way, they won't suspect a thing, and they will be stunned when you start to VANDALIZE!! Those old church ladies will never defeat the amazing powers of mass spam, and perhaps break a hip when trying to fix it! They will be resigned when you start to VANDALIZE!! They get more vandalism than other contributions.

You might be a diabolical reader who knows how to internet-method-act. If so, they make a perfectly innocuous username on CP, make perfectly innocuous mainspace edits, and don't put anything inflamatory on your userpage. Then IMITATE ANDY and use such methods as the Schlafly Reversal and the Schlafly Liberalator and protect the "truth" in key debates. Don't EVER question Andy. Do this for a year or so, adding content and bashing "liberals" using "logic," and perhaps Andy will make you a sysop. When he promotes you, be sure to thank Andy profusely, then send our warm fuzzy notices to the other admins. Wait one to two days doing perfectly normal Conservapedia sysop-type things, such as making full use of the Schlafly Rearguard. Then... GO INSANE! PROTECT EVERYTHING! BLOCK EVERYONE! SPAM THE ADMINS! It'll be the ultimate vengeance! You'll be welcomed into Liberapedia with fanfare. RationalWiki will celebrate you as a hero. Start right away! But don't do anything malicious, or you might just get "refered to the authorities." DON'T EVER MENTION THE FBI INCIDENT.

Edit some obscure articles and indirectly indicate that the Earth is older than twice the bristle cone pine tree's lifespan. NEVER question God's existence, even though we know there is no God (at least in the way as conservatives see it). You will be forming "islands of safety", places where Conservapedia is true.

If you dare, go on Talk Pages and support the other liberals. Just don't attack Karajou, he reverts whatever gets in his way of appearing to be a right-winged saint. And know that he might revert it. Also know that they have a very stupid 90/10 rule that could get you blocked for not editing enough articles.

Because blacks and females are statistically more progressive than conservative, Conservapedia appears racist. Their article on Barack Obama refers to him as the first "Affirmative Action" President. The article on Condoleezza Rice, however, takes a very positive view of her, with absolutely zero criticism. It appears that Conservapedia focuses more on slandering the Democrats and supporting the Republicans than being racist/sexist, as they never complain about Rice being black.

On the other hand, they really can't stand Muslims, claiming that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims", and include "Osama bin Laden" in the "Notable Muslim" list.

In England and Canada, words such as "color" and "humor" are spelt with extra u's; "colour" and "humour." While Liberapedia accepts this, as several editors here are British, "English-English" spellings on Conservapedia are classed as anti-American. This also applies to spellings using the letter s rather than z, as in "organisation" rather than "organization." It is believed this stems from the editors' beliefs that the letters "U" and "S" should not be used excessively without the letter "A", thus completing the abbreviation: USA.

"LearJet Four Lima Golf, this article or section may be utter nonsense. Do you copy?" "LearJet Four Lima Golf, copy." "LearJet Four Lima Golf, nonsense acknowledged."

{C
Young Earth Creationists believe Conservapedia is run by a coterie of ultra-liberal conservationists determined to drive conservatives away from religion with an editorial policy that insures every article on the site makes out that all Christians are irrational airheads. The YEC community also believes that the liberal deceit in every article on the site is designed to persuade conservatives that homeschooling inevitably produces illiterate fanatics. Prominent spokespeople for the YEC and Homeschooling movement have pointed to passages in Revelations that predict an evil twin will be created as a mirror image of The One True Wikipedia for the purpose of leading the faithful astray and into the clutches of the Evil One.

Sometimes NeoconPedia isn't so obvious with its rants. The Article on Jew has a section called "Life Cycle", as if they are talking about a species of animal. Going around calling Jews animals may be biologically true, but it appears derogatory and racist. We at Liberapedia wonder whether Conservapedia believes all humans are animals.

The article on Ramadan states that many muslims "spend several hours praying and studying the Qur'an," implying excessive devoutness. Christians that go to church several times a week aren't excessively devout, are they?

The Hitler article slanders the theory of evolution. {C
Using even more faulty Conservative logic, Conservapedia blames the United States' "early" loss in the Round of 16 at the World Cup on "feminism having eliminated soccer at Division I colleges." This is despite the fact that there are actually more Women's Soccer Division I teams than Men's, especially across The South. In fact, there are 23 Division I institutions in Texas, but only 4 of which have Men's Soccer teams (Houston Baptist, Incarnate Word, Southern Methodist University, and University of Texas Rio Grande Valley). Rather than trying to scapegoat women, we at Liberapedia know the real answer: America has consistently fared better in baseball than soccer.[1]